For anyone who can stop freaking out and hitting reply or post for one second

Why do you even bother do open those "'___' threads" (haha, i like that term )?
Usualy you can see by the thread title if its a '___' thread or not.

I often enjoy reading such threads and you would like to take that possibility / right away from me?

Oh, and sometimes you can find certain truths in just those "crazy" '___' threads, if you use your intuition and not only and always ask for "hard proof", which vice versa and ironically often contain falcities and lies.

Ko3

reply to post by lightinthedark33

There are some crazy threads, and there are some threads which may seem crazy, but are they?

With many esoteric things there is often no concrete proof, or if there is proof of some kind, then it is not of a scientific nature, but does this really matter. There is often as they say, ‘No smoke without fire’; and there are many things in creation, which are invisible to us, but still exist.

One of the most valuable aspects of ATS, is that people who have experienced, or think they have experienced the paranormal, have a place to share their story, and get help if possible. This will undoubtedly dig out the cranks and hoaxers, but at least the genuine people get heard as well.

How do you tell the genuine from the fake? Sometimes it’s just by a lack of evidence, like the Extra Terrestrial who has Internet Access and an ATS Account. How did they do that, and if they don’t answer, we can guess the reason? Sometimes there are key points in their story, which more knowledgeable ATS members in that field will recognise as true, whereas their lack of certain key points may suggest they are a fake.

Take ET’s & UFO’s, of which I have seen neither; can everyone who has or thinks they have experienced contact with either, be a fake? Well, it would be arrogant to think that we are the only inhabited planet in Creation, and also that we are the most advanced; this for a world population who still tolerate wars.

I understand that a certain religion says that the Saviour will come to Earth from Heaven once again. Although one may be sceptical about this, I suppose it could happen, and what then if it did? Just suppose a new post on ATS said that the OP had seen the reincarnated Saviour, how many would believe them? (This is not a dig at Christians) How many would say they were crazy?

A man with a golden aura walks up to you in the street and proclaims He is the Saviour; what are you going to do? Quick, let’s post it on ATS, but where’s the proof? Reincarnation cannot be proved scientifically; the Saviour had no ID, and even if he did have a pass signed by God, who’d believe Him? If when He arrived, He had no place to live, no money and no change of clothes, he’d have to queue at the soup kitchen, try and get a night in bed at the YMCA. Would anyone be more likely to believe Him in the morning?

All I am saying is, that some stories which sound incredible may have some truth in them, at the very least; that some proof may not stand up scientifically; and some eye witness accounts may seem less than credible as, even if they do carry a camera or mobile phone, getting a good picture of an aircraft or road traffic accident often requires a high level of skill, never mind UFO’s or aliens; should we then regard such threads as crazy?

My opinion is that they have every right to be posted in the appropriate place on ATS, because there are areas of ATS for these threads, and even if only a tiny minority of them turn out to be truthful, it is important that as a community we know about them.

The OP is just plugging his own website. This is the second post Ive seen where he links to it. Nicely put together, but still just plugging a site, nonetheless.

there really needs to be an age limit ti post

i mean at least 18 or even 21

the post needs to be from someone with at least enough life experience to understand what they are posting about

thats the problem today even young kids think because they are tech savy it automaticly makes them all wise and full of knowledge when some are just ipod listening kids with Absolutely no clue of the real world yet because mom and dad still take care of them

then you have the college student who is cramming for papers and thesis final exams who as of at the moment is well read and freshly studious , but still has not been subjected to the full weight of the real world yet. dont get me wrong some do but most dont

but in their mind they feel they are above any oldtimer, who really is full of lifes wisdom and can really give good advise but they choose to not listen as they feel above them in intelect because its current in their minds

but to most of them it feels very deep and insightfull at the moment so they feel the need to post it and get it off their minds

more power to them but this is not the place for people who still live at home

when i come here i at least want them to have pubic hair or have had to pay a mortgage car payment balance a household budget

, and jnot ust having to worry about what jane and johny are doing at the sock hop or what songs to download on their ipod, or what frat party to go to, or what said chick they will make out with or what guy they thinks they are cute

if you know what i mean

reply to post by Tallsorts


If we were dealing just with the more impenetrable and cryptic aspects of reality, then there would be precious little opportunity, or even need, to engage in any type of discussion other than theoretical. But we aren’t just dealing with esoteric subject-matter; we are often confronted by individuals who are insistent they have had a real and genuine experience. Not a theoretical revelation, or a measured personal consideration, but a nuts and bolts happening.

With many esoteric things there is often no concrete proof, or if there is proof of some kind, then it is not of a scientific nature, but does this really matter.

The evidence in the case of esoteric phenomena is ephemeral, and therefore purely speculative, except to the experiencer. There are many excellent threads that deal specifically with such concepts, and offer only literal explanations for their premises. Unless one is comfortably familiar with the content of this often highly spiritual, New Age theology, then it is best to learn from the posts rather than demand corroboration. As you say, in this case, there is no concrete proof available. And it is in these threads that the discussion becomes truly enlightening as they attract well versed and capable conversationalists.

But the same absolutely cannot be said for the “'___' threads”.

One of the most valuable aspects of ATS, is that people who have experienced, or think they have experienced the paranormal, have a place to share their story, and get help if possible.

Perfectly put. But if only it were that straight forward. How do you begin to discern the genuine from the hoaxer/deluded/self-deceiving threads? Well, by asking questions for a start, preferably ones that are designed to extract information not only about the “experience”, but the reason behind the “experiencer” wanting to tell ATS about it.

This will undoubtedly dig out the cranks and hoaxers, but at least the genuine people get heard as well.

The problem created by hoaxers et all, is that the genuine posters reporting the same phenomena become grouped with them. And that is not their fault. We have read of countless experiences, many genuine sounding and that is more than likely exactly what they were. But because of the almost pack mentality that has developed as a result of the influx of hoaxers etc., the authentic accounts get descended upon and torn apart. And that is not fair.

How do you tell the genuine from the fake?

If a fake story is told with aplomb by someone who is a half decent writer and who has researched their account well enough, then it is difficult to say the least. Here, in my opinion, time must be taken to allow the poster to become comfortable in their thread. Confidence can breed overconfidence and hopefully that will show up in inconsistencies occurring that really shouldn’t be there.

Sometimes there are key points in their story, which more knowledgeable ATS members in that field will recognise as true, whereas their lack of certain key points may suggest they are a fake.

Here is where a hoaxer gains a following; most fakers don’t want an argument, or even answer awkward questions. If they include recognizable content, as in data and description and sentiments already recorded in previous, real accounts, then there is a small section of the populace who will automatically believe them, no questions asked. Doubters may well contribute to the thread, and be ignored or looked down upon with pity, but it is this pre-made captive group of adherents, and no matter how small, that the faker is after.

I understand that a certain religion says that the Saviour will come to Earth from Heaven once again. Although one may be sceptical about this, I suppose it could happen, and what then if it did? Just suppose a new post on ATS said that the OP had seen the reincarnated Saviour, how many would believe them? (This is not a dig at Christians) How many would say they were crazy?

You, like myself, may have only read of certain Christian prophets, or been exposed to Biblical stories on the cinema and television. And if you have, and even if you don’t agree with the creed, you will have to admit that they were well presented. Obviously God chooses his representatives well; Moses supposedly had a terrible stutter, so his brother Aaron became his mouthpiece after learning the message perfectly for example.

So why are we supposed to accept the veracity of posters who cannot articulate a single coherent sentence who then insist they have a message from supposedly advanced beings? Are “alien” criteria for speaking to humans that lax that they choose bad orators? Somehow, that doesn’t make sense. When was the last time you saw someone in a position of extreme importance who could not articulate convincingly. Even George Bush could give a speech writen for him.

All I am saying is, that some stories which sound incredible may have some truth in them,

Yes they might, in fact I hope some do. We need something wonderful to happen to us as a species.

But it is not only important, but imperative that hoaxers be made aware that if they come here they will either face total silence, or a well balanced and logical approach to their claims that will include a distinctly skeptical slant. And if you have had a real experience, wouldn’t you wade through all of the serial doubters simply because you were telling the truth?

I would.

reply to post by Beamish

You, like myself, may have only read of certain Christian prophets, or been exposed to Biblical stories on the cinema and television. And if you have, and even if you don’t agree with the creed, you will have to admit that they were well presented. Obviously God chooses his representatives well; Moses supposedly had a terrible stutter, so his brother Aaron became his mouthpiece after learning the message perfectly for example.

So why are we supposed to accept the veracity of posters who cannot articulate a single coherent sentence who then insist they have a message from supposedly advanced beings? Are “alien” criteria for speaking to humans that lax that they choose bad orators? Somehow, that doesn’t make sense. When was the last time you saw someone in a position of extreme importance who could not articulate convincingly. Even George Bush could give a speech written for him.

Thanks for your skilful surgical dissection of my post, and you are right; that God will only select an appropriately qualified soul to present His word, and in some cases he will do that Himself.

It is my understanding that when it is considered appropriate, He will appear in our world, in disguise, as well as certain members of His High Command similarly presented. What better on a covert mission, but to appear as a semi-literate beggar, who may or may not have internet access? Of course, there is a whole debate to be had on that subject alone, but perhaps another time?

It may be that God sees the carpenter, the blacksmith or the nurse as being of considerable importance, and George Bush of little importance, on the spiritual scale; but I take your point.

I agree that it is vital that the hoaxers are tested and found out.

Flag from me friend. There is a HUGE double standard on the content of ATS and the T&C as well. I think these mods and super mods need a more objective viewpoint. They need to think, would this thread be tollerated if it was talking about ATS or its members? For example, there was a mod who posted a thread reguarding my church. The post was knowingly misleading so i wrote to the complaint board about the issue and i got reply from a mod that was involved with a simmilar thread. That said it was okay. Later i was personaly attacked and the guy even said "i know you will complain because i am attacking you" and ,that was okay. But when i made a joke i lost 1000 points, even though it was an obvious joke with no ill will intended that a nun would be able to tollerate.

A conspiracies site is a flame for all kinds of moths to dance around.

Since the content is user driven , what can you do .....?

It must of been like watching bush get elected a second time ...

It would seem that 'the themes ' on ATS move through cycles much like the wax and wane of Carabu ..

If it wasn`t for a dozen and a half members who always post interesting well supplemented posts, i would visit less.
But what does that say about me , if i want better content, then it is myself that should put my shoulder to the wheel.
...... i keep putting off compiling my first Thread because i obsess about getting it right etc.

One man's crazy ..... is another man's belief system.

You certainly have a point though.

Originally posted by lightinthedark33
What really set me off on this was seeing forum members who have credibilty posting in non crediable posts! Why post in the persons thread if it is not crediable.

Two reasons;

A)
Because we are bored and waiting for something new and good to pounce on...

B)
Because there is subliminal messaging on the pages that say...Post... you must POST... you MUST POST....

Oh yeah? Prove me wrong then

reply to post by YoungStalin


But when i made a joke i lost 1000 points, even though it was an obvious joke with no ill will intended that a nun would be able to tollerate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The people who post on this site have to get out of the mindset of being points whores! If you feel something needs to be said, and you can do so without being insulting or rude, then I would do so and have my say every time. This whole point system in a way is an attempt to try and control the membership and while members refuse to have their say for fear of having points removed in way of a fine (a fine for speaking their mind) then ATS will alway fall short of being a true site debating conspiracies and mysteries.
Don't insult anyone. Don't use racist or foul language but do speak your mind. . !

Glad to see good discussion going on here.

For me, I actually try to 'post' very similarly to the way I would talk to a person face-to-face. You know, with a hand-shake & smile, so to speak, and looking right in their eyes, out of respect.

That's the only way I could hope to receive any in return. And not post like a fiendish gool hiding behind anonymity, thinking I have no accountability.

Now go jump in a lake!! just kiddin. . . God bless!

Originally posted by lycopersicum
there really needs to be an age limit ti post

i mean at least 18 or even 21

Disagree. I read a brilliant post on a philosophical concept written by a 14 year old discussing a school lecture and relating the thoughts he had about it.

Age doesnt mean quality thinking. I have met several older people who pale in comparison to that young man.

And to the OP enjoy the loonyness! There is a time traveller from the 1800's on right now looking for help getting back to his own time!

Lol.

Id like to suggest a few new rules for posting on ATS.

Any member of less than say 3 month's be restricted to reply's only(Probation period).

If said new member want's to start a new thread it has to be reviewed by the Mod's,the same as an Anonymous post.

Am i asking too much or would this be feasible?

Although I mostly agree with what the OP says, I must also say:

You cannot prove anything on or over the Internet. Nothing

There is no evidence anyone can produce over the Internet that cannot be fabricated, altered or hyped. Absolutely nothing can be proven. Not a thing.

This is the Internet, we must all get over trying to prove this or that using so called evidence that can never be accepted as evidence.

Why do you think the 9/11 discussion is still going on?

It is an in-escapable stalemate until some form of accepted higher authority states that presented evidence is 100% genuine and thus should be accepted by all supporters from both sides of the argument. And that type of evidence shall never materialize either way because both sides will never agree upon the impartiality of such an authority.

Quad Erat Demonstrandum? Not on the Internet.

This concludes my 1-point rant.

My friend Dr. Rufus Red says that people should be able to say whatever they want whenever thay want so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. The T&Cs are what separates us from the animals

[edit on by YoungStalin]